Ask the Scholar

{
    "localId": "7564791",
    "label": "Chandler, David",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/7564791"
}

{
    "id": "7564791",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/7564791",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "Chandler, David",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/7564791",
    "collections": [
        "John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection",
        "Papers of Jim Garrison"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/91/5647/7564791/content/arcmedia/dc-metro/jfkco/641323/jfk-garrison-020/jfk-garrison-020-0033.jpg",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/91/5647/7564791/content/arcmedia/dc-metro/jfkco/641323/jfk-garrison-020/jfk-garrison-020-0033.jpg",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/91/5647/7564791/content/arcmedia/dc-metro/jfkco/641323/jfk-garrison-020/jfk-garrison-020-0033.jpg",
    "imageCount": 34,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/7564791",
    "naId": 7564791,
    "levelOfDescription": "fileUnit",
    "recordType": "description",
    "ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}

{
    "seq": 34,
    "pageIndex": 0,
    "type": "document",
    "url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/91/5647/7564791/content/arcmedia/dc-metro/jfkco/641323/jfk-garrison-020/jfk-garrison-020.pdf",
    "mediaId": "a5b02676564ded67",
    "ocrText": "CHANDLER, DAVID\nEXHIBIT \"F\"\nFile\nSTATE OF LOUISIANA\nPARISH OF ORLEANS\nBEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, personally\ncame and appeared:\nDAVID CHANDLER\nwho, after being first duly sworn, declared that:\nI have been employed by Life Magazine for the past\nthree years as Representative Reporter in the New Orleans\narea, among other locations.\nMy interest in the late David W. Ferrie began in mid-\nNovember 1966 with the information that Ferrie was definitely\nlinked to organized crime figures such as Carlos Marcello. In\nmy conversations with Jim Garrison in early December, 1966 I\nwas surprised to learn he, too, was concentrating on Ferrie\nvis a vis the assassination. I was further surprised to find\nhim ignoring Ferrie's organized crime associations and exclusively\nconcerning himself with Ferrie's much less obvious anti-Castro\nassociations. Several times in December and January, I tact-\nfully attempted to steer Garrison into at least considering\norganized crime's possible involvement with the assassination.\nI was unsuccessful. On the evening of January 24, 1967, I\npressed harder with the ploy detailed below, written at that\ntime as a memo to myself.\nIn the January 26 interview by Ward, I did not enter\ninto any extensive, or I should say candid, dialogue with him\nbecause I wasn't confident of my legal rights and know from\npersonal knowledge that both Garrison and Ward's offices are\nwired for surreptitious tape recordings and feared any candid\nto speak of Ferrie a 02-\ngannjed crime associations is to em-\nwe welt into and we were and me-\npicture This was one of the first things\nplay a half futh to paint an untrue\nsaterfied that this simply was not the significant\narea, would herdly have confided 8.7. thinday\nthing else & to Chandler\ndialogue would be used against me. I decided to wait first\nfor some legal advice and, second, to talk to Ward in a public\nand unwired place.\nThat juncture occurred two days prior to the States-\nItem's first break on the story (approximately Feb. 17) in the\nanteroom of the District Attorney's office complex and in the\npresence of S-I reporter Rosemary James. I told Ward then I\nhad been advised that his use of the Grand Jury subpoena to\nquestion me was an abuse of Grand Jury powers. I told him\nthat if I ever again heard of such misuse of the Grand Jury\nsubpoena by him or his office I would endeavor to bring the\nwhole record of grand jury subpoenas before the empaneling\nJudge (Shea) with attendant publicity. To my knowledge it\nwas after that conversation that the DA's office shifted from\nusing Grand Jury subpoenas for their interrogations to a law\nempowering DA's subpoenas which had become effective January\n1, 1967.\nAt the time the above mentioned memo was written, it\nwas my opinion the DA's office was attempting to intimidate me\nfrom asking questions embarrassing to Jim Garrison. That opinion\nremains at this writing.\nOn the evening of January 24, Max Gonzales and De-\ntective Louis Ivon of the District Attorney's office came to\nmeet Pelham and myself in the Richelieu Hotel. Mostly, Pelham\ntalked to Gonzales and I talked to Ivon. Ivon gave me a copy\nof the November 25 report on the raid on Ferrie's apartment.\nI studied it and asked Ivon if he had heard of any passports\nbeing found in the apartment. I told him I had heard this in-\nformation a couple of years ago from Sgt. Raymond Comstock, who\n-2-\nled the 1963 raid and who resigned from the DA's office some\ntwo years ago to rejoin the Police Intelligence Unit after a\npersonality clash with Garrison and Pershing Gervais. Ivon\nsaid this was news to him and was very interested. I asked\nhim why the original case against Ferrie was dropped. He\nsaid he didn't know. I asked if it was possible Pershing had\nbeen bribed. He was noncommittal but again interested. At\nthis point Gonzales joined the conversation and I told him we\nwere discussing the bribe possibility. The matter was then\ndropped and we went on to other things.\nOn the night of January 25, I returned to my apart-\nment and found the subpoena (attached). I subsequently phoned\nGarrison who said he couldn't discuss the matter before I\nappeared but expected to talk to me immediately afterward.\nAt 8:45 A.M. I talked briefly to my attorney, N.O.\nSheriff Louis Heyd, who like myself was completely puzzled as\nto why I was being called before the Grand Jury. He said con-\nflict of interest prevented him from representing me, and advised\nthat I invoke the 5th on all sensitive questions. I then went\nto the Grand Jury Room and was told by Al Oser he didn't know\nwhy I'd been called but that I was to see Charles Ward, Garrison's\ntop assistant. I did so and after a 45 minute wait was admitted.\nWard called in a stenographer, first name Lorraine,\nthen told me that all accusations of bribery occurring in the\nDA's office were being turned over to the Grand Jury for in-\nvestigation. He said this case would be brought before the\njury and with his power of notary was swearing me in. (The\nimplication was that he was acting in behalf of the Grand Jury,\n-3-\nalthough he didn't say this specifically). I took the oath\nand after the usual identification preliminaries questioned\nme closely about a December, 1962, repeat, December, 1962\nextortion charge against Ferrie subsequently dropped. He\nquestioned closely about my informants. I declined to answer\nall questions pertaining to my informants, my belief in a\nbribery, my knowledge of a bribery. I told him I had asked\nIvon and Gonzales if it was possible a bribery had occurred.\nHe attempted to weave this into the questioning as my\n\"hypothesis\" that a bribery did occur. He was unsuccessful\nand the stenographer was dismissed. He said I was an unethical\njournalist for asking such \"poisonous\" questions and said he\nwas \"officially\" advising me to get counsel because I would\nbe brought before the Grand Jury. He said I could be liable\nto perjury. I asked him if he would like my opinion of his\nethics and he said no. Ivon was present during part of the\nquestioning and we left Ward's office together. Ivon was\ndistressed about the whole thing and reassured me that it was\nnot him that had told Garrison or Ward. He implied it was\nGonzales and said he was brought into Garrison and asked if\nthe conversation occurred and replied yes.\nImmediately afterward, I talked to my attorney Heyd\nagain. He was amazed at what he called the abuse of the\nGrand Jury powers (I gave him no particulars, just said I was\nquestioned about a possible bribery). He said Ward's action\nwas completely illegal and amounted to a \"bullshit\" coercion.\nHe recommended a lawyer named Monk Zelden who he thinks will\nbe effective if the matter comes up again.\n-4-\nIt seems to me that Garrison and Ward had two\nmotives. The first, to find out for their private use my\ninformants and any bribery knowledge. Two, to intimidate\nme from asking further indiscreet questions.\nWhen I went in to see Ward, he rationalized that\nthe office now has a policy whereby all bribery accusations\nare brought before the Grand Jury. Therefore, he was\nquestioning me. I subsequently learned he was not acting\nlegally in behalf of the Grand Jury. Any information he gained\nfrom me would not have to go before the Grand Jury. He could\nkeep it for his own and act as he saw fit. If he was truly\ninterested in making it an official inquiry, why not bring it\nbefore the Grand Jury itself? The only answers I can get are\nthe ones in the first paragraph.\nIt is my belief, based upon all of the facts recited\nabove and my impression, based upon the entire history as\noutlined above, that the Grand Jury subpoena has been used\nas a retaliatory measure against me and that a pattern of such\nuse by the District Attorney creates an atmosphere of intimida-\ntion among the members of the news media in this community.\nDovid chandes\nDAVID CHANDLER\nSworn to and subscribed before me\nthis 16 day of aug , 1967\nWillow E, Bann\nNOTARY PUBLIC\n-5-\nINTERROGATION OF DAVID CHANDLER BY CHIEF ASSISTANT DISTRICT\nATTORNEY CHARLES R. WARD ON THURSDAY, JANUARY 27, 1967 FROM\nAPPROXIMATELY 9:20 a.m. TO 9:40 a.m.\nWARD:\nYou were subpoenaed because we are aware of an\nallegation of a bribe in this office. The purpose\nof the questioning is to determine what you know\nabout the allegation of a bribe relative to the\ncase of David Ferrie. Whenever we uncover or hear\nof a rumor in which allegations such as this are\ninvolved, we are preparing a case for presentation\nto the Grand Jury. We are preparing a case now\nlike we prepare any other case because we consider\nit a serious matter when anybody in our office is\nquestioned of their integrity. The testimony is\ngoing to be recorded in lieu of the Grand Jury\nsubpeona. I am sure you are aware of the conse-\nquences of any answers or testimony after I give you\nthe oath. This is a result possibly of remarks\nwhich you have passed on to us in the past but other\npersons have also.\nDo you swear that you will testify truly and truth-\nfully as to the testimony you are about to give in\nthe matter of the\nin the case\nof David W. Ferrie?\nCHANDLER: I swear.\nWARD:\nYou are under oath.\nINTERROGATION OF DAVID CHANDLER BY CHIEF ASSISTANT DISTRICT\nATTORNEY CHARLES R. WARD ON THURSDAY, JANUARY 27, 1967 FROM\nAPPROXIMATELY 9:20 a.m. TO 9:40 z.m.\nWARD:\nState your name.\nCHANDLER: David Chandler.\nWARD:\nWhat is your address?\nCHANDLER: 724 Governor Nicholls.\nWARD:\nOccupation?\nCHANDLER: Journalist.\nWARD:\nMarital Status?\nCHANDLER: Married.\nWARD:\nTo whom are you married?\nCHANDLER: Patricia Morin Chandler.\nWARD:\nWhat is your wife's occupation or profession?\nCHANDLER: Journalist.\nWARD:\nHow long have you been so employed or engaged in\nthis profession?\nCHANDLER: Nine years.\nWARD:\nWhat was your employment or occupation on\nDecember 28, 1962?\nCHANDLER: Journalist.\nWARD:\nWere you employed by any corporation or any particular\nperson at that time?\nCHANDLER: Times-Picayune, Inc.\nWARD:\nWhere were you residing then?\nCHANDLER: To the best of. my knowledge at 533 Dumaine.\nWARD:\nDo you know one David Ferrie?\nCHANDLER: Yes.\nWARD:\nDo you know him personally?\nCHANDLER: I have met him - talked to him.\nWARD:\nWhen?\nCHANDLER: December, 1966.\nWARD:\nWhere?\nCHANDLER:\nLakefront Airport.\nWARD:\nWho was present?\nCHANDLER: Mr. Lynn Pelham and other persons whose names I can't\nanswer because I don't have my notes with me.\nWARD:\nPrior to that time?\nCHANDLER: No.\nWARD:\nWas that your first personal acquaintance with him?\nCHANDLER:\nTo the best of my knowledge, yes.\nWARD:\nAre you acquainted with the charge against David\nFerrie relative to extortion and intimidation of a\nwitness which charge was in the Criminal District\nCourt?\nCHANDLER: No.\nWARD:\nDo you know the alleged victim of the extortion,\nJohn Cater, in that case?\nCHANDLER:\nNot to the best of my knowledge.\nWARD:\nDo you know one of the alleged witnesses, Michael\nCrouchet?\nCHANDLER:\nTo the best of my knowledge, no.\nWARD:\nDid you have any knowledge of this case in December,\n1962?\nCHANDLER: No.\nWARD:\nWhen did you first acquire knowledge of the case of\nthe State VS. David Ferrie relative to extortion?\nCHANDLER:\nHere and now.\nWARD:\nAre you saying that today is the first time you have\nhad knowledge of the facts in the case of the State\nVS. David Ferrie in the matter of extortion?\nCHANDLER: Yes.\nWARD:\nAre you acquainted with anything to the fact situation\nconcerning David Ferrie wherein he was charged in the\nCriminal District Court?\nCHANDLER: I had heard that he was charged.\nWARD:\nFrom whom?\n-3-\nCHANDLER: This whole thing comes as a surprise. Without\ncounsel I decline to answer on the grounds that it\nwill tend to incriminate me.\nWARD:\nDid you inform Detective Louis Ivon and Max Gonzales\nthat there was a bribe or there was money given to\na former employee or investigator of the District\nAttorney's office to intervene in this case?\nCHANDLER: Did I inform them of this? No.\nWARD:\nWhat did you say?\nCHANDLER: To the best of my knowledge I asked them if this was\npossible.\nWARD:\nWhat caused you to ask this question?\nCHANDLER: It is a routine question in my line of work.\nWARD:\nDid you ask the question about any other case?\nCHANDLER: Ask these two particular gentlemen questions on any\nother case?\nWARD:\nWhy did you select the case of David Ferrie to ask\nquestions?\nCHANDLER: Because it was the case I was interested in at that\nmoment.\nWARD:\nDid you have any prior information about the charge\nthat would cause you to ask about this case?\nCHANDLER: I decline to answer on the grounds that it would tend\nto incriminate me. I have no counsel to advise me.\nWARD:\nWhen did you first learn of the facts which led you\nto ask this question?\nCHANDLER: I decline to answer on the grounds that it would tend\nto incriminate me.\nWARD:\nTo whom did you first communicate this information?\nCHANDLER: I decline to answer on the grounds that it would tend\nto incriminate me.\nWARD:\nWhy did you wait to disclose this information if you\nhad it in the past?\nCHANDLER: I decline to answer on the grounds that it would tend\nto incriminate me.\nWARD:\nAre you aware that the victim and the witness in this\ncase both declined to testify for the State referring\nto the case of extortion of David Ferrie?\nCHANDLER:\nThe victim and\nWARD:\nThe witness.\nCHANDLER: No, I am not aware of that.\nWARD:\nAre you aware that the victim, John Cater, and the\nwitness, Michael Crouchet, declined to testify for\nthe State when the case was set for trial?\nCHANDLER: I am not aware of that.\nWARD:\nAre you also aware that Reverend John H. Mullahy of\nthe Society of Jesus intervened for David Ferrie and\nrequested a new investigation in light of the sworn\nstatements of the victim and witness, John Cater and\nMichael Crouchet?\nCHANDLER: I am not aware of that, no.\nWARD:\nAre you aware that Michael Crouchet and John Cater,\nalthough subpoenaed to testify refused to do so on\nthe date the case was called for trial?\nCHANDLER:\nI am not aware of that.\nWARD:\nDo you have any information that would indicate that\neither Michael Crouchet or John Cater received any-\nthing of value in order not to talk - to induce them\nnot to testify?\nCHANDLER: I decline to answer on the grounds that it may tend\nto incriminate me.\nWARD:\nDo you have any information that Reverend John H.\nMullahy received anything of value to induce him to\nintervene for the defendant David Ferrie.\nCHANDLER: I decline to answer on the grounds that it may tend\nto incriminate me.\nWARD:\nDo you have any knowledge of the case which was\nfiled in Jefferson Parish in which Michael Crouchet\nand John Cater were witnesses?\nCHANDLER: On a case filed in Jefferson Parish in which these\ntwo were witnesses? No.\nWARD:\nAre you aware that David Ferrie was charged with\nobscenity in Jefferson Parish and that Michael\nCrouchet and John Cater were alleged witnesses in\nthis case?\nCHANDLER: Of the case in toto, no, I am not aware.\nWARD:\nDo you have any knowledge of the disposition of the\nJefferson Parish case?\nCHANDLER: I have none.\nWARD:\nAre you aware of the date the Jefferson Parish case\nwas dismissed?\nCHANDLER: I am not.\nWARD:\nWhy would anyone offer as bribe to dismiss a case\nrelative to extortion of a witness in a case where\nthe primary case with the witness to testify has\nbeen dismissed.\nCHANDLER: I decline to answer on the grounds that it may tend\nto incriminate me.\nWARD:\nWhy would anyone offer a bribe for any intercession\nin a case where the two witnesses to the alleged\ncriminal act have declined to testify for the State?\nCHANDLER: I decline to answer on the grounds that it may tend\nto incriminate me.\nWARD:\nDo you know of any rational reason or explanation\nthat would induce someone to give money to anyone\nto dismiss an untriable case?\nCHANDLER: Speaking from the realm of speculation or from my\nown knowledge?\n%\nWARD:\nYour own knowledge.\nCHANDLER: I decline to answer on the grounds that it may tend\nto incriminate me.\nWARD:\nSince the case is untriable when the witnesses\ndecline to testify for the State, why should anyone\nwho is sane give money to anyone in the District\nAttorney's office to intercede? In the realm of\nspeculation.\nCHANDLER: In the realm of speculation it is possible that the\nperson offering the bribe may be unaware that the\nDistrict Attorney's office has made a decision not\nto try the case. This is one possibility.\nWARD:\nAre you aware that G. Wray Gill represented David\nFerrie in the alleged case of extortion?\nCHANDLER: I am not aware of the alleged case of extortion.\nI am aware that G. Wray Gill represented David Ferrie.\nWARD:\nAre you aware that two witnesses for the prosecution\nMichael Crouchet and John Cater, and the Reverend\nJohn H. Mullahy communicated to Wray Gill, Ferrie's\nattorney, that they did not desire to testify for\nthe prosecution prior to the trial of the case?\nCHANDLER: I am not.\nWARD:\nAre you aware that Wray Gill communicated this to\nDavid Ferrie?\nCHANDLER: I am not aware of that.\nWARD:\nDo you have any explanation, within the realn of\nspeculation, why, when the attorney for the defendant\nknew that the State's witnesses would not testify,\nthe defendant would offer a bribe to anyone in the\nDistrict Attorney's office?\nCHANDLER: In the realm of speculation it is possible that the\ndefendant is unaware that the case is in this\nsituation.\nWARD:\nThen your whole hypothesis would be based on the lack\nof communication or lack of knowledge of David Ferrie,\nthe defendant, in the action taken by his attorney\nand the witnesses?\nCHANDLER: My hypothesis on what?\nWARD:\nThat there was money paid to a former employee of\nthe District Attorney's office.\nCHANDLER: I don't recall that I said this was my hypothesis,\nWARD:\nHave you ever alleged or inferred in any manner that\na former employee of the District Attorney's office\nreceived money to intercede in any case in which\nDavid Ferrie was charged in the Criminal District\nCourt?\nCHANDLER: I decline to answer.\nWARD:\nAre you saying that you decline to answer on the\ngrounds that it may tend to incriminate you?\nCHANDLER: Yes and I have no benefit of counsel.\nWARD:\nDo you realize that you, by your refusal to answer,\nare saying that you possibly have committed an act\nwhich may be a crime and in violation of the laws of\nthe State of Louisiana?\nCHANDLER: I don't realize that at all. I am ignorant in the\nnature of the law and I have no counsel and I decline\nto answer on the grounds that it may tend to incrim-\ninate me.\nTESTIMONY WAS CONCLUDED.\nSUPPLEMENTAL:\nCHANDLER: Is that all?\nWARD:\nWell, you have now executed and completed the Grand\nJury subpoena. Why would you ever think that any-\nbody would pay money to any member of the District\nAttorney's office -- to Gervais -- to dispose of a\ncase which could not be tried?\nCHANDLER: It is part of my job -- by nature and training --\nthat I throw bread on the water and see what comes\nback to me -- as a feedback.\nWARD:\nI don't object to your technique but what I do object\nto is when the bread is poisoned, when it is a\nmalicious lie and when it is so devastating. When\nyou do this you are engaging in unethical practices.\nCHANDLER: Well, everybody is entitled to his own opinion.\nWARD:\nMy opinion of you is that you are an unethical\npractitioner.\nCHANDLER: Is that all?\nWARD:\nWe may proceed further with this in the Grand Jury\nand I now advise you to secure the advice and services\nof ,a lawyer to advise you in this matter.\nCHANDLER: I will.\nEXHIBIT \"A\"\nINPERROGATION OF DAVID CHANDLER BY CHIEF ASSISTANT DISTRICT\nATTORNEY CHARLES R. WARD ON THURSDAY, JANUARY 27, 1967 FROM\nAPPROKIVATELY 9:20 TO 9:40 e.m.\nWARD:\nState your name.\nCHANDLER: David Chandler.\nWARD:\nWhat is your address?\nCHANDLER: 724 Governor Nicholls.\nWARD:\nOccupation?\nCHANDLER: Journalist.\nWARD:\nMarital Status?\nCHANDLER: Married.\nWARD:\nTo whom are you married?\nCHANDLER: Patricia Morin Chandler.\nWARD:\nWhat is your wife's occupation or profession?\nCHANDLER: Journalist.\nWARD:\nHow long have you been so employed or engaged in\nthis profession?\nCHANDLER: Nine years.\nWARD:\nWhat was your employment or occupation on\nDecember 28, 1962?\nCHANDLER:\nJournalist.\nWARD:\nWere you employed by any corporation or any particular\nperson at that time?\nCHANDLER:\nTimes-Picayune, Inc.\nWARD:\nWhere were you residing then?\nCHANDLER: TO the best of my knowledge at 533 Dumaine.\nWARD:\nDo you know one David Ferrie?\nCHANDLER: Yes.\nWARD:\nDO you know him personally?\nCHANDLER: I have met him - talked to him.\nWARD:\nWhen?\nCHANDLER: December, 1956.\n-2-\nWARD:\nWhere?\nCHANDLER:\nLakefront Airport.\nWARD:\nWho was present?\nCHANDLER: Mr. Lynn Pelham and other persons whose names I can't\nanswer because I don't have my notes with me.\nWARD:\nPrior to that time?\nCHANDLER: No.\nWARD:\nWas that your first personal acquaintance with him?\nCHANDLER: To the best of my knowledge, yes.\nWARD:\nAre you acquainted with the charge against David\nFerrie relative to extortion and intimidation of a\nwitness which charge was in the Criminal District.\nCourt?\nCHANDLER: No.\nWARD:\nDo you know the alleged victim of the extortion,\nJohn Cater, in that case?\nCHANDLER: Not to the best of my knowledge.\nWARD:\nDo you know one of the alleged witnesses, Michael\nCrouchet?\nCHANDLER: To the best of my knowledge, no.\nWARD:\nDid you have any knowledge of this case in December,\n1962?\nCHANDLER: No.\nWARD:\nWhen did you first acquire knowledge of the case of\nthe State VS. David Ferrie relative to extortion?\nCHANDLER:\nHere and now.\nWARD:\nAre you saying that today is the first time you have\nhad knowledge of the facts in the case of the State\nVS. David Ferrie in the matter of extortion?\nCHANDLER: Yes.\nWARD:\nAre you acquainted with anything to the fact situation\nconcerning David Ferrie wherein he was charged in the\nCriminal District Court?\nCHANDLER: I had heard that he was charged.\nWARD:\nFrom whom?\n-3-\nCHANDLER: This whole thing comes as 8 surprise. Without\ncounsel I decline to enswer on the grounde that it\nwill tend to incriminate DB.\nWARD:\nDid you inform Detective Louis Ivon and Max Gonzales\nthat there was a bribe or there was money given to\na former employee or investigator of the District\nAttorney's office to intervene in this case?\nCHANDLER:\nDid I inform them of this? No.\nWARD:\nWhat did you say?\nCHANDLER: To the best of my knowledge I asked them if this was\npossible.\nWARD:\nWhat caused you to ask this question?\nCHANDLER: It is a routine question in my line of work.\nWARD:\nDid you ask the question about any other case?\nCHANDLER: Ask these two particular gentlemen questions on any\nother case?\nWARD:\nWhy did you select the case of David Ferrie to ask\nquestions?\nCHANDLER: Because it was the case I was interested in at that\nmoment.\nWARD:\nDid you have any prior information about the charge\nthat would cause you to ask about this case?\nCHANDLER:\nI decline to answer on the grounds that it would tend\nto incriminate me. I have no counsel to advise me.\nWARD:\nWhen did you first learn of the facts which led you\nto ask this question?\nCHANDLER: I decline to answer on the grounds that it would tend\nto incriminate me.\nWARD:\nTo whom did you first communicate this information?\nCHANDLER:\nI decline to answer on the grounds that it would tend\nto incrimihate me.\nWARD:\nWhy did you wait to disclose this information if you\nhad it in the past?\nCHANDLER: I decline to answer on the grounds that it would tend,\nto incriminate me.\nWARD:\nAre you aware that the victim and the witness in this\ncase both declined to testify for the State referring\nto the case of extortion of David Perric?\nCHANDLER: The victim and\nWARD:\nThe witness.\nCHANDLER: No. I an not aware of that.\nWARD:\nAre you aware that the victim, John Cater, and the\nwitness, Michael Crouchet, declined to tostify for\nthe State when the case was set for trial?\nCHANDLER: I am not aware of that.\nWARD:\nAre you also aware that Reverend John H. Mullahy of\nthe Society of Jesus intervened for David Ferrie and\nrequested a new investigation in light of the sworn\nstatements of the victim and witness, John Cater and\nMichael Crouchet?\nCHANDLER: I am not aware of that, no.\nWARD:\nAre you aware that Michael Crouchet and John Cater,\nalthough subpoenaed to testify refused to do so on\nthe date the case was called for trial?\nCHANDLER: I am not aware of that.\nWARD:\nDO you have any information that would indicate that\neither Michael Crouchet or John Cater received any-\nthing of value in order not to talk - to induce them\nnot to testify?\nCHANDLER: I decline to answer on the grounds that it may tend\nto incriminate me.\nWARD:\nDo you have any information that Reverend John H.\nMullahy received anything of value to induce him to\nintervene for the defendant Dayid Ferric.\nCHANDLER: I decline to answer on the grounds that it may tend\nto incriminate me.\nWARD:\nDO you have any knowledge of the case which was\nfiled in Jefferson Parish in which Michael Crouchet\nand John Cater were witnesses?\nCHANDLER: On a case-filed in Jefferson Parish in which these\ntwo were witnesses? No.\nWARD:\nAre you aware that David Ferrie was charged with\nobscenity in Jefferson Parish and that Michael\nCrouchet and John Cater were alleged witnesses in\nthis case?\nCHANDLER: of the case in toto, no, I am not aware.\nWARD:\nDO you have any knowledge of the disposition of the\nJefferson Parish case?\nCHANDLER: I have none.\nWARD:\nAre you aware of the date the Jefferson Parish case\nwas dismissed?\nCHANDLER: I am not.\nMARD:\nWhy would anyone offer a bribe to disniss E case\nrelative to excortion 05 E witness is : CBEO Wisse\nthe primary CREG with the withoss to ceatify has\nbeen dismissed.\nCHANDBER: I decline to answer on the grounds that it may tend\nto incriminate me.\nWARD:\nWhy would anyone offer a bribe for any intercession\nin a case where the two witnesses to the alleged\ncriminal act have declined to testify for the State?\nCHANDLER: I decline to answer on the grounds that it may tend\nto incriminate me.\nWARD:\nDo you know of any rational reason or explanation\nthat would induce someone to give money to anyone\nto dismiss an untriable case?\nCHANDLER: Speaking from the realm of speculation or from my\nown knowledge?\nWARD:\nYour own knowledge.\nCHANDLER: I decline to answer on the grounds that it may tend\nto incriminate me.\nWARD:\nSince the case is untriable when the witnesses\ndecline to testify for the State, why should anyone\nwho is sane give money to anyone in the District\nAttorney's office to intercede? In the realm of\nspeculation.\nCHANDLER: In the realm of speculation it is possible that the\nperson offering the bribe may be unaware that the\nDistrict Attorney's office has made a decision not\nto try the caso. This is one possibility:\nWARD:\nAre you aware that G. Wray Gill represented David\nFerrie in the alleged case of extortion?\nCHANDLER: I am not aware of the alleged case of extortion.\nI am aware that G. Wray Gill represented David Perris.\nWARD:\nAre you aware that two witnesses for the prosecution\nMichael Crouchet and John Cater, and the Reverend\nJohn H. Mullahy communicated to Wray Gill, Perrie's\nattorney, that they did not desire to testify for\nthe prosecution prior to the trial of the case?\nCHANDLER: I am not.\nWARD:\nAre you aware that Wray Gill communicated this to\nDavid Perric?\nCHANDLER: I am not aware of that:\nWARD:\nDo you have any explanation, within the realn of\nspeculation, why, when the attorney for the defendent\nknew that the State's witnesses would not testify,\nthe defendant would offer a bribe to anyone in the\nDistrict Attorney's office?\nCHANDLER: In the realm of speculation it is possible that the\ndefendant is unaware that the case is in this\nsituation.\nWARD:\nThen your whole hypothesis would be based on the lack\nof communication or lack of knowledge of David Ferrie,\nthe defendant, in the action taken by his attorney\nand the witnesses?\nCHANDLER:\nMy hypothesis on what?\nWARD:\nThat there was money paid to a former employee of\nthe District Attorney's office.\nCHANDLER: I don't recall that I said this was my hypothesis.\nWARD:\nHave you ever alleged or inferred in any manner that\na former employee of the District Attorney's office\nreceived money to intercede in any case in which\nDavid Ferrie was charged in the Criminal District\nCourt?\nCHANDLER:\nI decline to answer.\nWARD:\nAre you saying that you decline to answer on the\ngrounds that it may tend to incriminate you?\nCHANDLER: Yes and I have no benefit of counsel.\nWARD:\nDo you realize that you, by your refusal to answer,\nare saying that you possibly have committed an act\nwhich may be a crime and in violation of the laws of\nthe State of Louisiana?\nCHANDLER: I don't realize that at all. I am ignorant in the\nnature of the law and I have no counsel and I decline\nto answer on the grounds that it may tend to incrim-\ninate me.\nTESTIMONY WAS CONCLUDED.\nSUPPLEMENTAL:\nCHANDLER: Is that all?\nWARD:\nWell, you have now executed and completed the Grand\nJury subpoena. Why would you ever think that any-\nbody would pay money to any member of the District\nAttorney's office -- to Gorvais --- to dispose of a\ncase which could not be tried?\n-7-\nCHANDLER: It is part of my 103 -- by nature and training --\nthat I throw bread on the waternand see what comes\nback tooms --- as a feedback.\nWARD:\nI don't object to your technique but what I do object\nto is when the bread is poisoned, when it is a\nmalicious lie and when it is so devastating. When\nyou do this you are engaging in unethical practices.\nCHANDLER: Well, everybody is entitled to his own opinion.\nWARD:\nMy opinion of you is that you are an unethical\npractitioner.\nCHANDLER:\nIs that all?\nWARD:\nWe may proceed further with this in the Grand Jury\nand I now advise you to secure the advice and services\nof a lawyer to advise you in this matter.\nCHANDLER: I will.\nMEMORANDUM\nNovember 10, 1967\nTO:\nJIM GARRISON, District Attorney\nFROM:\nCHARLES R. WARD, Chief Assistant D. A.\nRE:\nDEPOSITION OF DAVID CHANDLER\n*\nAs you can see from the attached copy of\nDavid Chandler's deposition, Chandler has now changed his\nstory. When first he spoke with Louis Ivon he alleged\nthat a bribe was offered to a member of the District\nAttorney's office to dismiss the suit wherein David Ferrie\nwas charged with extortion. This suit was dismissed by\nFrank Klein in December, 1962, when it was apparent the\nvictim would not testify.\nWhen it became apparent to Chandler that\neveryone would realize the allegations were false, he then\ntried to charge that the bribe was offered to release\nDavid Ferrie from arrest and charges when he was arrested\nin 1963, in connection with the investigation into the\nassassination of President Kennedy.\nCHARLES R. WARD\nCRW/leb\nFrom the Desk of\nDate July 18, 1968\nJIM GARRISON\nTo Numa Bertel\nNuma:\nI have spoken with Jim and he wants to go ahead\nwith the appeal in this matter. Please expedite\nthe handling of this case.\nCRW\nTO: Charles R. Ward, Chief Assistant D. A.\nUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\nFIFTH CIRCUIT\nOffice of the Clerk\nEDWARD W. WADSWORTH\n400 Royal Street\nClerk\nJuly 15, 1968\nNew Orleans, La,\nMO. Louise Korns\nAssistant District Attorney\n2700 Tulane Ave.\nNew Orleans, La.\nRe: Jim Garrison, et al vs. David L. Chandler\nDear Sir:\nYou are hereby notified that upon the expiration of\nfifteen (15) days from this date, the appeal in the\nreferenced cause will be referred to the Court for\ndismissal for want of prosecution, unless within that\ntime you remedy your present default under the rules,\nwhich default is your failure to pay the docketing\nfee and withdraw the record for reproduction within\nthe ten (10) day period fixed by Rule 23(a).\nVery truly yours,\nEDWARD W. WADSWORTH\nClerk\nGeorge Baur\nBy\nDeputy Clerk\ncc: Mr. Cicero C. Sessions\nINTERROGATION OF DAVID CHANDLER BY CHIEF ASSISTANT DISTRICT\nATTORNEY CHARLES R. WARD ON THURSDAY, JANUARY 27, 1967 FROM\nAPPROXIMATELY 9:20 a.m. TO 9:40 a.m.\nWARD:\nYou were subpoenaed because we are aware of an\nallegation of a bribe in this office. The purpose\nof the questioning is to determine what you know\nabout the allegation of a bribe relative to the\ncase of David Ferrie. Whenever we uncover or hear\nof a rumor in which allegations such as this are\ninvolved, we are preparing a case for presentation\nto the Grand Jury. We are preparing a case now\nlike we prepare any other case because we consider\nit a serious matter when anybody in our office is\nquestioned of their integrity. The testimony is\ngoing to be recorded in lieu of the Grand Jury\nsubpeona. I am sure you are aware of the conse-\nquences of any answers or testimony after I give you\nthe oath. This is a result possibly of remarks\nwhich you have passed on to us in the past but other\npersons have also.\nDo you swear that you will testify truly and truth-\nfully as to the testimony you are about to give in\nthe matter of the\nin the case\nof David W. Ferrie?\nCHANDLER: I swear.\nWARD:\nYou are under oath.\nINTERROGATION OF DAVID CHANDLER BY CHIEF ASSISTANT DISTRICT\nATTORNEY CHARLES R. WARD ON THURSDAY, JANUARY 27, 1967 FROM\nAPPROXIMATELY 9:20 a.m. TO 9:40 a.m.\nWARD:\nState your name.\nCHANDLER: David Chandler.\nWARD:\nWhat is your address?\nCHANDLER: 724 Governor Nicholls.\nWARD:\nOccupation?\nCHANDLER: Journalist.\nWARD:\nMarital Status?\nCHANDLER: Married.\nWARD:\nTo whom are you married?\nCHANDLER: Patricia Morin Chandler.\nWARD:\nWhat is your wife's occupation or profession?\nCHANDLER: Journalist.\nWARD:\nHow long have you been so employed or engaged in\nthis profession?\nCHANDLER: Nine years.\nWARD:\nWhat was your employment or occupation on\nDecember 28, 1962?\nCHANDLER: Journalist.\nWARD:\nWere you employed by any corporation or any particular\nperson at that time?\nCHANDLER: Times-Picayune, Inc.\nWARD:\nWhere were you residing then?\nCHANDLER: To the best of my knowledge at 533 Dumaine.\nWARD:\nDo you know one David Ferrie?\nCHANDLER: Yes.\nWARD:\nDO you know him personally?\nCHANDLER: I have met him - talked to him.\nWARD:\nWhen?\nCHANDLER: December, 1966.\nWARD:\nWhere?\nCHANDLER: Lakefront Airport.\nWARD:\nWho was present?\nCHANDLER: Mr. Lynn Pelham and other persons whose names I can't\nanswer because I don't have my notes with me.\nWARD:\nPrior to that time?\nCHANDLER: No.\nWARD:\nWas that your first personal acquaintance with him?\nCHANDLER:\nTo the best of my knowledge, yes.\nWARD:\nAre you acquainted with the charge against David\nFerrie relative to extortion and intimidation of a\nwitness which charge was in the Criminal District\nCourt?\nCHANDLER: No.\nWARD:\nDo you know the alleged victim of the extortion,\nJohn Cater, in that case?\nCHANDLER:\nNot to the best of my knowledge.\nWARD:\nDo you know one of the alleged witnesses, Michael\nCrouchet?\nCHANDLER: To the best of my knowledge, no.\nWARD:\nDid you have any knowledge of this case in December,\n1962?\nCHANDLER: No.\nWARD:\nWhen did you first acquire knowledge of the case of\nthe State VS. David Ferrie relative to extortion?\nCHANDLER:\nHere and now.\nWARD:\nAre you saying that today is the first time you have\nhad knowledge of the facts in the case of the State\nVS. David Ferrie in the matter of extortion?\nCHANDLER: Yes.\nWARD:\nAre you acquainted with anything to the fact situation\nconcerning David Ferrie wherein he was charged in the\nCriminal District Court?\nCHANDLER: I had heard that he was charged.\nWARD:\nFrom whom?\n-3\nCHANDLER: This whole thing comes as a surprise. Without\ncounsel I decline to answer on the grounds that it\nwill tend to incriminate me.\nWARD:\nDid you inform Detective Louis Ivon and Max Gonzales\nthat there was a bribe or there was money given to\na former employee or investigator of the District\nAttorney's office to intervene in this case?\nCHANDLER:\nDid I inform them of this? No.\nWARD:\nWhat did you say?\nCHANDLER: To the best of my knowledge I asked them if this was\npossible.\nWARD:\nWhat caused you to ask this question?\nCHANDLER: It is a routine question in my line of work.\nWARD:\nDid you ask the question about any other case?\nCHANDLER: Ask these two particular gentlemen questions on any\nother case?\nWARD:\nWhy did you select the case of David Ferrie to ask\nquestions?\nCHANDLER: Because it was the case I was interested in at that\nmoment.\nWARD:\nDid you have any prior information about the charge\nthat would cause you to ask about this case?\nCHANDLER: I decline to answer on the grounds that it would tend\nto incriminate me. I have no counsel to advise me.\nWARD:\nWhen did you first learn of the facts which led you\nto ask this question?\nCHANDLER: I decline to answer on the grounds that it would tend\nto incriminate me.\nWARD:\nTo whom did you first communicate this information?\nCHANDLER:\nI decline to answer on the grounds that it would tend\nto incriminate me.\nWARD:\nWhy did you wait to disclose this information if you\nhad it in the past?\nCHANDLER: I decline to answer on the grounds that it would tend\nto incriminate me.\nWARD:\nAre you aware that the victim and the witness in this\ncase both declined to testify for the State referring\nto the case of extortion of David Ferrie?\nCHANDLER:\nThe victim and\nWARD:\nThe witness.\nCHANDLER: No, I am not aware of that.\nWARD:\nAre you aware that the victim, John Cater, and the\nwitness, Michael Crouchet, declined to testify for\nthe State when the case was set for trial?\nCHANDLER: I am not aware of that.\nWARD:\nAre you also aware that Reverend John H. Mullahy of\nthe Society of Jesus intervened for David Ferrie and\nrequested a new investigation in light of the sworn\nstatements of the victim and witness, John Cater and\nMichael Crouchet?\nCHANDLER: I am not aware of that, no.\nWARD:\nAre you aware that Michael Crouchet and John Cater,\nalthough subpoenaed to testify refused to do so on\nthe date the case was called for trial?\nCHANDLER:\nI am not aware of that.\nWARD:\nDo you have any information that would indicate that\neither Michael Crouchet or John Cater received any-\nthing of value in order not to talk - to induce them\nnot to testify?\nCHANDLER: I decline to answer on the grounds that it may tend\nto incriminate me.\nWARD:\nDo you have any information that Reverend John H.\nMullahy received anything of value to induce him to\nintervene for the defendant David Ferrie.\nCHANDLER: I decline to answer on the grounds that it may tend\nto incriminate me.\nWARD:\nDo you have any knowledge of the case which was\nfiled in Jefferson Parish in which Michael Crouchet\nand John Cater were witnesses?\nCHANDLER: On a case filed in Jefferson Parish in which these\ntwo were witnesses? No.\nWARD:\nAre you aware that David Ferrie was charged with\nobscenity in Jefferson Parish and that Michael\nCrouchet and John Cater were alleged witnesses in\nthis case?\nCHANDLER: Of the case in toto, no, I am not aware.\nWARD:\nDo you have any knowledge of the disposition of the\nJefferson Parish case?\nCHANDLER: I have none.\nWARD:\nAre you aware of the date the Jefferson Parish case\nwas dismissed?\nCHANDLER: I am not.\nWARD:\nWhy would anyone offer a bribe to dismiss a case\nrelative to extortion of a witness in a case where\nthe primary case with the witness to testify has\nbeen dismissed.\nCHANDLER: I decline to answer on the grounds that it may tend\nto incriminate me.\nWARD:\nWhy would anyone offer a bribe for any intercession\nin a case where the two witnesses to the alleged\ncriminal act have declined to testify for the State?\nCHANDLER: I decline to answer on the grounds that it may tend\nto incriminate me.\nWARD:\nDo you know of any rational reason or explanation\nthat would induce someone to give money to anyone\nto dismiss an untriable case?\nCHANDLER: Speaking from the realm of speculation or from my\nown knowledge?\nWARD:\nYour own knowledge.\nCHANDLER: I decline to answer on the grounds that it may tend\nto incriminate me.\nWARD:\nSince the case is untriable when the witnesses\ndecline to testify for the State, why should anyone\nwho is sane give money to anyone in the District\nAttorney's office to intercede? In the realm of\nspeculation.\nCHANDLER:\nIn the realm of speculation it is possible that the\nperson offering the bribe may be unaware that the\nDistrict Attorney's office has made a decision not\nto try the case. This is one possibility.\nWARD:\nAre you aware that G. Wray Gill represented David\nFerrie in the alleged case of extortion?\nCHANDLER: I am not aware of the alleged case of extortion.\nI am aware that G. Wray Gill represented David Ferrie.\nWARD:\nAre you aware that two witnesses for the prosecution,\nMichael Crouchet and John Cater, and the Reverend\nJohn H. Mullahy communicated to Wray Gill, Ferrie's\nattorney, that they did not desire to testify for\nthe prosecution prior to the trial of the case?\nCHANDLER:\nI am not.\nWARD:\nAre you aware that Wray Gill communicated this to\nDavid Ferrie?\nCHANDLER: I am not aware of that.\nWARD:\nDo you have any explanation, within the realm of\nspeculation, why, when the attorney for the defendant\nknew that the State's witnesses would not testify,\nthe defendant would offer a bribe to anyone in the\nDistrict Attorney's office?\nCHANDLER: In the realm of speculation it is possible that the\ndefendant is unaware that the case is in this\nsituation.\nWARD:\nThen your whole hypothesis would be based on the lack\nof communication or lack of knowledge of David Ferrie,\nthe defendant, in the action taken by his attorney\nand the witnesses?\nCHANDLER: My hypothesis on what?\nWARD:\nThat there was money paid to a former employee of\nthe District Attorney's office.\nCHANDLER: I don't recall that I said this was my hypothesis,\nWARD:\nHave you ever alleged or inferred in any manner that\na former employee of the District Attorney's office\nreceived money to intercede in any case in which\nDavid Ferrie was charged in the Criminal District\nCourt?\nCHANDLER: I decline to answer.\nWARD:\nAre you saying that you decline to answer on the\ngrounds that it may tend to incriminate you?\nCHANDLER: Yes and I have no benefit of counsel.\nWARD:\nDo you realize that you, by your refusal to answer,\nare saying that you possibly have committed an act\nwhich may be a crime and in violation of the laws of\nthe State of Louisiana?\nCHANDLER: I don't realize that at all. I am ignorant in the\nnature of the law and I have no counsel and I decline\nto answer on the grounds that it may tend to incrim-\ninate me.\nTESTIMONY WAS CONCLUDED.\nSUPPLEMENTAL:\nCHANDLER: Is that all?\nWARD:\nWell, you have now executed and completed the Grand\nJury subpoena. Why would you ever think that any-\nbody would pay money to any member of the District\nAttorney's office -- to Gervais -- to dispose of a\ncase which could not be tried?\nCHANDLER: It is part of my job -- by nature and training --\nthat I throw bread on the water and see what comes\nback to me -- as a feedback.\nWARD:\nI don't object to your technique but what I do object\nto is when the bread is poisoned, when it is a\nmalicious lie and when it is so devastating. When\nyou do this you are engaging in unethical practices.\nCHANDLER: Well, everybody is entitled to his own opinion.\nWARD:\nMy opinion of you is that you are an unethical\npractitioner.\nCHANDLER: Is that all?\nWARD:\nWe may proceed further with this in the Grand Jury\nand I now advise you to secure the advice and services\nof ,a lawyer to advise you in this matter.\nCHANDLER: I will.\nINTERROGATION OF DAVID CHANDLER BY CHIEF ASSISTANT DISTRICT\nATTORNEY CHARLES R. WARD ON THURSDAY, JANUARY 27, 1967 FROM\nAPPROXIMATELY 9:20 a.m. TO 9:40 a.m.\nWARD:\nYou were subpoenaed because we are aware of an\nallegation of a bribe in this office. The purpose\nof the questioning is to determine what you know\nabout the allegation of a bribe relative to the\ncase of David Ferrie. Whenever we uncover or hear\nof a rumor in which allegations such as this are\ninvolved, we are preparing a case for presentation\nto the Grand Jury. We are preparing a case now\nlike we prepare any other case because we consider\nit a serious matter when anybody in our office is\nquestioned of their integrity. The testimony is\ngoing to be recorded in lieu of the Grand Jury\nsubpeona. I am sure you are aware of the conse-\nquences of any answers or testimony after I give you\nthe oath. This is a result possibly of remarks\nwhich you have passed on to us in the past but other\npersons have also.\nDo you swear that you will testify truly and truth-\nfully as to the testimony you are about to give in\nthe matter of the\nin the case\nof David W. Ferrie?\nCHANDLER: I swear.\nWARD:\nYou are under oath."
}